November 6, 2010
Can NASA Get Its Groove Back?
Time to return
Remember when space exploration was “groovy” and excitement about seeing humans explore the Solar System within our lifetimes was palpable? What happened to NASA and America’s dream to boldly go? The pathway that assured us that space exploration is cool, amazing and pushes excellence has disappeared, littered instead by U-turns and Stop signs. NASA’s groove was the right stuff. When did vanish? Can we get it back?
America’s rhythm is stalled. Movement in our economy is going the wrong way. Education standards are mediocre. We’re not evolving. We’re not in our groove. And the country feels it.
Is NASA’s dilemma symptomatic of what ails us? “If we could put a man on the Moon..” has become cliché but was the zenith of American exceptionalism. The last time a human walked on the Moon was in December 1972 – 38 years ago next month. NASA has long since stopped getting “free drinks” from the retelling of that decades old conquest. It’s time to light the fire again and do something profound, this time something cumulative and lasting. Conquering the Moon is where we found our groove and if we choose, where we can reclaim it.
NASA languished a year waiting to hear what, where and when their mission would be. They’re still waiting, as NASA ponders how to proceed on the “Flexible Path” to their ultimate goal of Mars. Congress recessed without passing a federal budget for 2011 and NASA is operating under a continuing resolution. Things are certainly flexible.
The latest buzz in the space blogosphere is about the recent midterm election results and subsequent changes in House committees with Republicans in the majority. After these new committee chairs take charge, will they set new priorities? Only time will tell but past statements by those mentioned to fill these positions give some clues. They seem less inclined to “sell the farm,” thereby giving control of U.S. space access to foreign entities. They seem to be cautious about handing the reins of LEO access to commercial start-ups, preferring to have them prove themselves first, while at the same time guaranteeing that NASA retains the infrastructure necessary to assure our national interests in space. Will their priorities for NASA rest more with the agency staying as a national economic and security asset and less as an international outreach program, heavily influenced by Earth science concerns? Much rests on the decisions made and the money appropriated by the incoming Congress.
The current administration’s decision to abandon NASA’s mission of resource utilization on the Moon needs to be revisited. The ability of the United States to routinely access cislunar space through the use of the Moon and its resources needs to be well understood and addressed. We cannot afford to remain complacent about the Moon while other countries move forward to reap the rewards of lunar return. The United States needs to make smart investments that will pay long-term dividends. Lunar return is one of those economic and technological investments.
The majority of the panel of engineers and scientists invited to speak at the recent Space Manufacturing conference meeting at NASA’s Ames Research Center (sponsored by the Space Studies Institute) held the view that lunar mining was the logical next move and that government needed to “prime the pump” and demonstrate that this was possible before private enterprise would follow. We need private sector money to fully pursue the purpose and realize the potential of space exploration. NASA needs to show that resource utilization is possible on the Moon. Once we understand how to access and develop lunar resources, private enterprise will capitalize on these findings. As the door to a sustainable space faring infrastructure finally swings open, the tyranny of the rocket equation will be broken.
It is time for America to find its groove again. It is time to extol the right stuff and pursue goals of national excellence. Setting a goal that may be obtained in 30 years is not a space program. A return to the Moon to learn how to use its resources is achievable using existing technology and within the decade-long timescales demanded by our political process.
37 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
Can NASA Get Its Groove Back? | The Once and Future Moon…
Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……
Trackback by World Spinner — November 6, 2010 @ 11:22 pm
There’s no logical reason why America can’t return to the Moon within a decade and start the process of establishing a permanently manned lunar facility at one of the lunar poles– even with the current NASA budget– as long as the Moon program is prioritized.
However, a permanent Moon base is a threat to the last bastions of geocentricism: a cultural and sometimes religious belief that humans and the Earth are the center of the universe. I still encounter seemingly rational individuals who refuse to believe that Americans actually landed humans on the Moon. In fact, a 1999 Gallup poll showed that an astounding 6% of Americans held this belief.
While most Americans accept the reality of the Moon landings there are still those who only want us to make brief visits to the Moon, Mars, or to an asteroid so that we will always return to where we truly belong, the good ole Earth. And they don’t see why anyone would ever want to leave.
Of course, we were originally a tropical species that was originally confined to sub-Saharan Africa. But thanks to our brains and our technological know-how, we now inhabit practically every region of our planet. And now our natural instinct to venture and to colonize alien environments is now taking us beyond the Earth itself.
A Moon Base is the next logical step in our cultural evolution. And there is no doubt in my mind that it will lead to permanent settlements on the Moon, Mars, and beyond while making human society much more prosperous and technologically advanced.
America has the chance to be one of the first nations to reap the technological and economic benefits of a permanent lunar facility. But if we turn our backs on this next logical step in space then we will suffer the economic consequences. Nations have to be willing to invest in the future if they are to prosper. But those that don’t will decline economically while their culture gradually sinks into ignorance.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — November 7, 2010 @ 12:07 am
The idea that this administration has abandoned NASA’s mission of resource utilization on the Moon is remarkably naive. Firstly, the Administration decided that human return to the Moon was not a viable near term goal. That the Moon as a reasonable destination was abandoned entirely is ludicrous. Secondly, NASA never had a “mission of resource utilization”. The idea of resource utilization was an interesting idea that was dependent on ground truth of utilizable resources and the technologies to get us there with the necessary equipment. That this was something one might do on the Moon after we returned there with people was a happy dream, but it was never part of any real mission planning activity.
Bringing the Moon into our economic sphere is an idea that deserves careful consideration, but the value of it is dependent on a lot of things. One important thing is affordability. Right now, we can’t afford to do it.
Yes, nations have to be willing to invest in the future to prosper, but development of lunar resources is just one of many possible routes for such investment. Our education standards being mediocre is another investment target that you mention briefly. That we’re not ready to develop lunar resources is hardly symptomatic of a country that isn’t in it’s “groove”.
Comment by Harris Tweed — November 7, 2010 @ 11:23 am
Firstly, the Administration decided that human return to the Moon was not a viable near term goal.
Wrong. The Augustine Committee were presented with at least three alternative architectures that did lunar return under their own budget guidelines and those alternatives were ignored by the both committee and the administration. Rather than fix the problem, they eliminated ANY strategic direction and came up with a spend-money-on-widgets technology entitlement program.
Secondly, NASA never had a “mission of resource utilization”
Wrong again. You may disagree with it, but the purpose of lunar return in the Vision for Space Exploration was to learn the skills we need to live and work on another world, including specifically the extraction of usable materials and energy from off-planet resources. Read some of the founding documents of the VSE here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999
That we’re not ready to develop lunar resources is hardly symptomatic of a country that isn’t in it’s “groove”.
Who says we’re not ready? In any event, my theme is aspiring to challenging things in space, not the national psyche in general, although they are related.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 7, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
My belief is that the main driver of the decisions that were made was the desire for American glory. It was felt that if we didn’t do ourselves one better then we wouldn’t have a space program worth being proud of. This logically led not only to an insistence on a manned space program but one that eventually had to go beyond the Moon because we’d been there before. So, although the Moon was along the path, we had to go beyond the Moon one way or another. The Moon was therefore not a destination but a stepping stone to Mars, or if not, then Deimos or an asteroid. Anywhere beyond the Moon.
The greater goal of Mars drove the size of the Ares V which then determined the size of the Altair lunar lander and comments such as the plan to abandon in place any lunar outpost as we moved on to Mars.
Sustainability was secondary to greater American glory. Likewise, being able to service our orbital assets, or SPS, or harvesting lunar ice, or lunar science, or mining asteroids, or any number of things were never given significant consideration for this reason.
Now, you get a group of space manufacturing people together and, of course, they think about space resource utilization. But the policy makers are mostly politicians and their top priority is being beloved by the electorate. This means pursuing American glory rather than a level-headed, far-sighted plan to open up space permanently.
My proposal is that we find a way where the politicians can still have their glory but that we get Sustainable Space Development as well. But, because the manned program will suck up such a large percent of NASA’s budget, we need to have a pretty inexpensive plan which still achieves the goal of opening up space in a sustainable way.
To me, this means (first and foremost) a lunar prospecting mission to characterize the nature of polar ice. Then, a series of teleoperated robotic missions to remotely establish mining operations to extract and return lunar ice. Let’s please not have a manned lunar mission by NASA. That is too expensive and won’t get funded as long as the need to do something novel still dominates thinking. In order to keep the development of lunar resources as inexpensive as possible, we need to have a COTS/CCDev-like approach where commercial companies are paid only when they have achieved milestones or have delivered lunar-derived resources to NASA.
It’s all doable within 10 years and within a reasonable percent of NASA’s budget.
Comment by JohnHunt — November 8, 2010 @ 12:25 am
But the policy makers are mostly politicians and their top priority is being beloved by the electorate. This means pursuing American glory rather than a level-headed, far-sighted plan to open up space permanently.
The problem with this interpretation is that the original Vision for Space Exploration was exactly about “opening up space permanently” through the use of lunar resources. And in case you didn’t notice, that goal was embraced by Congress in two different authorization bills. In the new NASA authorization (Section 305a), cislunar space is mentioned in 4 of the 7 provisions of the prefacing section; human lunar surface presence is mentioned in 3 of those 7 sections. So there are some in Washington who recognize the strategic and economic importance of lunar return and resource utilization.
That said, I agree with you that the first steps back to the Moon should be robotic ones. There are many aspects of the polar deposits that we do not fully understand and a series of robotic assets on the lunar surface can acquire the critical information that we need. I have a paper in preparation that describes a lunar return architecture that is affordable under existing budgetary guidelines; it relies on robotic assets in its early phases.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 8, 2010 @ 4:23 am
“Wrong. The Augustine Committee were presented with at least three alternative architectures that did lunar return under their own budget guidelines and those alternatives were ignored by the both committee and the administration. Rather than fix the problem, they eliminated ANY strategic direction and came up with a spend-money-on-widgets technology entitlement program.”
I’m not sure what you’re saying makes my point wrong. I said that this administration decided that the Moon was not a viable near term goal, where viability is determined not just by technical competence but by congressional marketability. That a lunar return is still in play is clear from the FY11 budget, which clearly states that — “The President’s FY 2011 Budget request outlines an innovative new path for human space exploration and strengthens the capability to extend human presence throughout the solar system. NASA is taking a new approach to this long-term goal; by laying the ground work that will enable humans to safely reach multiple potential destinations, including the Moon, asteroids, Lagrange points, and Mars and its environs.” In fact, the “widgets” this administration decided to invest in are ones that would actually lay the groundwork to make lunar resource utilization affordable.
“Wrong again. You may disagree with it, but the purpose of lunar return in the Vision for Space Exploration was to learn the skills we need to live and work on another world, including specifically the extraction of usable materials and energy from off-planet resources. Read some of the founding documents of the VSE here:”
As to my point that NASA never had a “mission of resource utilization” for the Moon, let’s not confuse “vision” with “mission”. A mission is something you spend money on, and it can be how a vision is implemented. I know of no mission accepted for development by NASA and Congress for extracting lunar resources. (Well, OK, LCROSS extracted lunar volatiles and thew them up in a big plume!) In fact, such a mission would be crazy given that its costs would be, at least right now, so poorly understood. It is significant that the references you point us to are reports from the White House, and not actually mission plans from the agency. The question wasn’t whether the White House wanted to do lunar resource extraction, it was whether the agency had mission plans to do so. It didn’t. It still doesn’t. That’s why we’re not ready to do it.
By the way, the Space Act, which defines the purpose of the agency, says nothing about resource extraction. So while even a “vision” of lunar resource utilization might be fine for the nation, it is not obviously sellable as the future of NASA. Yes, I think the Space Act needs to be revisited. It doesn’t even refer to human space flight.
Comment by Harris Tweed — November 8, 2010 @ 9:33 am
I said that this administration decided that the Moon was not a viable near term goal, where viability is determined not just by technical competence but by congressional marketability.
That’s the part that’s wrong. There was Congressional approval of the strategic path (the VSE) that NASA was supposed to follow. The fact that Constellation had over-cost issues was secondary; those could have been fixed. Instead, the administration threw out the strategic path by fiat, not as a result of reasoned consideration.
The question wasn’t whether the White House wanted to do lunar resource extraction, it was whether the agency had mission plans to do so. It didn’t.
Yes, and many of us have pointed out that fact as a deficiency in agency implementation of the VSE for several years now.
By the way, the Space Act, which defines the purpose of the agency, says nothing about resource extraction. So while even a “vision” of lunar resource utilization might be fine for the nation, it is not obviously sellable as the future of NASA.
NASA does a lot of things that aren’t specifically mentioned in the 1958 Space Act. The VSE was a statement of near-term strategy and policy and as good a one as we are likely to get. The administration’s alternative is simply a prescription for pointless technical tinkering and corporate welfare for New Space, all the while pretending that we’re going to Mars.
A real program with definable milestones that create real capabilities versus a fake program of non-accomplishment and bureaucratic tail-chasing. Gee — wonder which I should prefer?
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 8, 2010 @ 9:50 am
> Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 7, 2010 @ 1:30 pm
>> Secondly, NASA never had a “mission of resource utilization”
>
> Wrong again. You may disagree with it, but the purpose of lunar return in
> the Vision for Space Exploration was to learn the skills we need to live and
> work on another world, including specifically the extraction of usable
> materials and energy from off-planet resources. Read some of the founding
> documents of the VSE here:
>
Ah your stretching there Paul.
I noted your not pointing to gov policy docs, but to articles written by space supportive spaceref. Even among those.
Of the first the only comment related to lunar resources.
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404
>= Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil
>= contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed
>= into rocket fuel or breathable air.
The second
> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999
Does mention:
>= The greatest value of the Moon lies neither in science nor
>= in exploration, but in its material. And I am not talking about
>= mining helium-3 as fusion reactor fuel. I doubt that will
>= ever be economically feasible. I am talking about
>= the possibility of extracting elements and minerals that can
>= be processed into fuel or massive components of space
>= apparatus. The production of oxygen in particular, the major
>= component (by mass) of chemical rocket fuel, is potentially
>= an important Lunar industry.
and
>= There is no question, however, that the expense of such a
>= mission would be vastly reduced if the bulk of its fuel and
>= massive components could be obtained from materials,
>= and manufactured, outside Earth orbit. The Moon is a logical
>= place to do this.
I obviously would question if lunar material could cut the costs, but ignoring that — your statement that the “… purpose of lunar return in the Vision for Space Exploration was to learn the skills we need to live and work on another world, including specifically the extraction of usable materials and energy from off-planet resources. …” is backward. Lunar resource extraction was only considered to support VSE if it could save the program money, not that the lunar resource extraction was a goal of the program.
On the other hand the second ref mentioned:
>= Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed
>= by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act,
>= affirms that, “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance
>= U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a
>= robust space exploration program.” ==
Which is a goal I’ld certainly support.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 8, 2010 @ 10:03 am
>Comment by JohnHunt — November 8, 2010 @ 12:25 am
> My belief is that the main driver of the decisions that
> were made was the desire for American glory. It was
> felt that if we didn’t do ourselves one better then we
> wouldn’t have a space program worth being proud of.
> This logically led not only to an insistence on a manned
> space program but one that eventually had to go beyond
> the Moon because we’d been there before. So, although
> way or another. The Moon was therefore not a destination
> but a stepping stone to Mars, or if not, then Deimos
> or an asteroid. Anywhere beyond the Moon. ===
Big agree.
Sadly, the whole sustainability part of Bush’s speech was forgotten (most especially by NASA) almost instantly. NASA saw sustainability and routine ops as boring the public; and rare big booster launches, and stepping farther out, as exciting the public and political support.
What we really need is a way to foster a large scale economic benefit, a profitable commercial activity in space.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 8, 2010 @ 10:22 am
Lunar resource extraction was only considered to support VSE if it could save the program money, not that the lunar resource extraction was a goal of the program.
This is absolutely untrue. I know the people who crafted the VSE and the intent of the statements about learning to use lunar resources. If you chose to believe otherwise, that’s fine with me.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 8, 2010 @ 10:40 am
Ironically, President Obama now needs to aggressively support a Moon base program if he has any hope of winning the swing State of Florida during the next presidential election. If Gore had won Florida in 2000, he would have become President of the United States over Bush; if Kerry had won Florida in 2004, he would have become President of the United States over Bush. Its difficult for me to see Obama wining in 2012 without winning the State of Florida.
The President could save face from his previous negative comments about returning to the Moon by simply arguing that he was simply against Apollo Redux. He’s already compromised to some degree by agreeing to support the building of a new crew launch vehicle and heavy lift vehicle. Now all we need is a hydrogen/oxygen fueled single stage lunar landing vehicle that could eventually become a reusable vehicle by taking advantage of water resources at the lunar poles.
The President needs to return to the US from Asia as a new man that has learned from his mistakes and with a new more rational and aggressive agenda for the US that supports the creation of good jobs by investing in America’s energy, space, and transportation infrastructure and its technological future!
NASA is the ultimate symbol of American scientific and technological progress. And a Moon base program will not only create jobs in Florida, California, Texas, and in many other States but it will also tell the world that America will continue to be the technological leader on Earth and in the New Frontier.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — November 8, 2010 @ 11:17 am
So i have a question for the audience…… hypothetically, if it was shown that, given the funding profile available to Constellation as defined to the Augustine Commission by NASA and OMB, NASA could put a human outpost on the Moon by 2025 using lunar resources initially for propellant generation, coupled with reusable assets, whould that be worth doing? The caveat would be, no new money and no fixed shcedule, and there would be a number of significant but not insurmountable challenges. Would you agree that it would be worthwhile for NASA to pursue?
Comment by Tony L — November 8, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
@ Tony L
1. I think a manned Lunar base should be as automated and teleoperated from Earth as much as possible. This should reduce cost substantially. There’s no logical reason why we can’t immediately use Atlas V and Delta IV rockets to send robots to investigate the lunar poles, test water extraction methods, and prepare lunar regolith for future manned landing vehicles and lunar base habitats.
2. I think initially a manned lunar shuttle should be able to operate without using fuel derived from the lunar surface while still being able to take full advantage of such resources once they become available. That would probably mean replacing the current Altair concept with a fully hydrogen/oxygen fueled single stage vehicle which would probably be a lot cheaper to develop than a two stage vehicle that uses two types of fuel and oxidizers.
But I don’t think a manned return to the Moon should be– initially– dependent on lunar resources or should be delayed until we can adequately mine, electrolyze, liquify, and pump cryogenic lunar fuel into a lunar module on the lunar surface. IMO, a permanently manned lunar facility should gradually move in the direction of fully utilizing lunar volatiles to sustain human life on the Moon and to fuel lunar shuttles and space depots within cis-lunar space.
With extremely limited funds, I think NASA should keep things as simple as possible while gradually and progressively moving a permanently manned lunar facility towards complete independence from oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen resources from Earth.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — November 8, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
Marcel, I really respect your view. You might be right. But my concern is about how much money it would take to make a permanent NASA lunar manned base. Would you need a new heavy lifter?If so, what could have been done with all the billions in development and support? Politically, could the administration and Congress be convinced to return their astronauts to the Moon when, “We’ve already done that”?
I believe NASA won’t send it’s astronauts back to the Moon without a new, expensive HLV. But, I believe that a Bill Stone would privately go if he could be lifted to LEO in a Falcon 9 and met in LEO with either lunar-derived fuel or an Earth-derived fuel depot. If we really minimize the size of the lunar lander then you don’t need an HLV. Let Obama and Congress keep their asteroid adventure. But make the return to the Moon as inexpensive as possible by using nothing more than F9Hs, teleoperations, and a minimalist manned lunar lander. IMHO.
Comment by JohnHunt — November 9, 2010 @ 2:41 am
Couldn’t the below fueled rocket chair and its EDS be lifted to LEO with a Falcon 9 Heavy? Do we really need a new HLV to return people to the Moon? And if robotic landers had already prepared ascension fuel, then the rocket chair and EDS could be yet smaller. NASA could fund such a lunar return for “pennies on the Apollo”.
http://www.google.com/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=safari&q=zspchair.jpg#i=0
Comment by JohnHunt — November 9, 2010 @ 2:53 am
Do we really need a new HLV to return people to the Moon?
No. But again, you’re focusing on the means, not the ends. The problem with the “new direction” is that it discarded a clear, strategic path and replaced it with nothing — a “technology development” boondoggle while we flexibly pretend to go somewhere and do something or other sometime in the distant future.
Let Obama and Congress keep their asteroid adventure.
So we should just be silent, go away and let them permanently screw everything up? They’re spending tax dollars. I do not think it out of line to demand that we get something in return.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 9, 2010 @ 3:51 am
> Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 8, 2010 @ 10:40 am
>> Lunar resource extraction was only considered to support
>> VSE if it could save the program money, not that the
>> lunar resource extraction was a goal of the program.
> This is absolutely untrue. I know the people who crafted
> the VSE and the intent of the statements about learning
> to use lunar resources. ==
There intent doesn’t mater much in Washington, and the fact this phrasing pushes it as a support function, not a goal, makes it vulnerable.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 9, 2010 @ 10:46 am
> Comment by Marcel F. Williams — November 8, 2010 @ 11:17 am
>
> Ironically, President Obama now needs to aggressively support a Moon
> base program if he has any hope of winning the swing State of Florida during
> the next presidential election. ==
Obama pretty much blew that option. He went to KSC during his campaign and promised to extend shuttle to close the gap, and support return to the moon, etc. He didn’t deliver and everyone around the center (which is a critical voting block) is pretty furious about it.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 9, 2010 @ 10:51 am
Marcel, the issue with having an initial plan (no lunar propellant) and swithing later is one of cost. The mission designs are different enough in that case that it would require completely new designs for the vehicles involved. That is expensive, and cannot be done anytime soon with the existing NASA budget expectation. Getting back to my original question (which by the way would start slowly with robotic missions to demonstrate incremental ISRU capability) if there existed an overal lunar architecture campaign that closed on cost and performance and showed a human outpost (albeit small) in roughly 15 years from the start, with a focus on use and exploration of resources to determine ultimate usefulness in the pursuit of learning how to live off-planet affordably, would that be a valuable endeavor for NASA to pursue?
Comment by Tony L — November 9, 2010 @ 11:17 am
>== if it was shown that, given the funding profile available to Constellation
> as defined to the Augustine Commission by NASA and OMB, NASA could
> put a human outpost on the Moon by 2025 using lunar resources initially
> for propellant generation, coupled with reusable assets, would that be
> worth doing?
Reusability isn’t the point. That’s spending tens of billions to test systems yuo think you might need if a design is made with your assumptions – someday.
What’s the point of the Base? Training for Mars? Developing the moon for industrial use? Flags and footprints?
You can’t justify the base without stating what its for.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 9, 2010 @ 11:54 am
> Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 9, 2010 @ 3:51 am
>
> == The problem with the “new direction” is that it discarded a
> clear, strategic path and replaced it with nothing — a “technology
> development” boondoggle while we flexibly pretend to go somewhere
> and do something or other sometime in the distant future.
Bingo. Techno busy work for the agency. Pretty much just to keep them on staff so the nidustries don’t disappear before someone in Washington can come up with something they want frmo them. A real mission.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 9, 2010 @ 11:58 am
What’s the point of the Base? Training for Mars? Developing the moon for industrial use? Flags and footprints? You can’t justify the base without stating what its for.
Opening up cislunar space by establishing a permanent presence on the Moon to tap its resources. With such a system, we open up all of space for all of your envisioned uses — and much more.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 9, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
> Opening up cislunar space by establishing a permanent
> presence on the Moon to tap its resources. With such a
> system, we open up all of space for all of your
> envisioned uses — and much more.
If the base is to tap Lunar resources then you need to find a market for them on Earth. A lunar base to facilitate a specific (not yet approved) archetecture for lunar access is kind of catch 22 — Like the HLV development program, developing a HLV with no specific mission defined.
You could easily, adn arguable easier adn cheaper, do the same transport just launching everything from Earth.
Actually the base might make more sense as a central staging area to launch missions to other areas of the moon? Doing the orbital mechanics tricks to get to various points on the moon seems to be a big issue for flight planers. A central equatorial base from which other expeditions could be serviced and launched to other places no the moon, then return to the base for the layover for launch back to Earth, might be a plus. Certainly Oxygen is available on the moon. A lot of projects no the moon would need to be at different places.
… Assuming a lander hoping suborbital would need less Delta-V or whatever then the L-1 stop over and divert, or other tricks suggested to get to non equatorial points?
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 9, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
Kelly,
I didn’t understand your comment on reusability. It is not an End, it is a Means. Reusability coupled with use of lunar resources reduces cost substantially…. one can now stage a lander at the Moon rather than buillding a copy and flying that mass to the Moon for each flight.
The purpose of the outpost is simple and unconfused; to learn how to live off-planet. A major part of this would be to investigate the potential exploitation of off-world resources, starting with propellant (made from water) in the pursuit of long term human habitation off-planet (eventually, but recognized to be a long way off). Part of the purpose would also to investigate life support systems in partial gravity, and eventually explore the potential for biological closure of the Life Support Systems. Another highlight would be to study and reduce the Earth logistics train, by whatever means. There are others. Science would be a valuable by-product, but not listed as the primary purpose.
Comment by Tony L — November 9, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
>Comment by Tony L — November 9, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
> I didn’t understand your comment on reusability. ==
Probably because I meant to say lunar resources, not reusability.
;/
Distracted by someone.
Sorry.
>== Reusability coupled with use of lunar resources
> reduces cost substantially…. ==
Not in any reasonable scenario I’ve ever seen. Generally it increases costs due to needing extra infrastructure and support costs you don’t get from just launching the extra fuel, etc.
>== one can now stage a lander at the Moon rather than
> building a copy and flying that mass to the Moon for each flight.
You don’t need to throw landers away each time, and are you considering the costs of building a base big enough to do extensive servicing of the lander?
>== The purpose of the outpost is simple and unconfused; to learn
> how to live off-planet. A major part of this would be to investigate
> the potential exploitation of off-world resources, ==
Agree – but if your resource utilization is little more then make work, or actually is a cost sink – you’re developing more justification to abandon space as useless. So its critical you develop these projects, bases with a more hard nosed attention to costs and benefits. Most of the recourse utilization proposals ignore that. Which is more a a critical limit no using/developing space then any technology.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 9, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
If the base is to tap Lunar resources then you need to find a market for them on Earth.
No you don’t — you can use them to create a space transportation system that can routinely access other zones of cislunar space. Lunar propellant changes the entire approach we use to orbit and maintain satellite assets for a variety of national purposes — strategic, economic and scientific.
We’re arguing in circles again. You ask for a mission and I give you one. You come back saying that there is no mission. Enough.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 9, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
>> Do we really need a new HLV to return people to the Moon?
>> No. But again, you’re focusing on the means, not the ends.
The two aren’t completely unrelated nor does the means always follow the ends. If we propose an inexpensive means, then maybe we can get them to change/add to their ends.
For example, if they believe that the only way of returning to the Moon is through a HLV then they feel as though they won’t have enough money to go a completely different place (i.e. asteroid, Deimos, or Mars). But if we can show them that, by returning to the Moon using existing (or soon to exist) rockets, that this will facilitate their preferred goals then maybe we don’t have to be in a one-or-the-other situation. Those Altair animations did their part in making people think that it was one or the other.
I have been unable to Google the mass of SpaceDev’s rocket chair. So, I did my own estimated mass calculations using the image of SpaceDev’s rocket chair. It seems to me that it would be able to come in below 1,000 kg. At that mass, very inexpensive launchers could get it to LEO. So, I believe that a single F9H could land an astronaut on the lunar surface at a fraction of the cost of what it would have cost going the Ares V / Altair approach.
Comment by JohnHunt — November 9, 2010 @ 8:35 pm
@JohnHunt
NASA has already authorized the building of an HLV, CEV, and EDS stage. So if we’re going to build all of those things, we might as well use them productively. All we need now is to fund a lunar landing vehicle which really shouldn’t cost more than $500 million to a billion a year over 7 to 10 years to fund– if it is a single stage vehicle and not the more expensive two stage vehicle originally proposed.
The unmanned component of a lunar base program should probably require three or four HLV launches per year (two habitat modules, one connecting node with life support system, and lunar base support machinery, food, water, air and other resources.
Right now we have about 5 HLV launches per year (the shuttle is really an HLV since it can place 25 tonnes into orbit, plus up to 11 passengers, plus a 78 tonne space plane. At the height of the Shuttle program, NASA had as many as 8 HLV launches per year. We’ve had 132 HLV launches since the shuttle program began.
Manned missions will probably require two HLV launches each or one HLV launch plus a sub-HLV crew launch per mission. Its cheaper limit the number of manned launches to the Moon to two or three missions per year. And we’ll learn a lot more about the human ability to adjust to the Moon’s macrogravity environment by keeping astronauts on the lunar surface for a year or more. Even without lunar resources, it shouldn’t be too difficult to supply perhaps 8 to 12 people at a Moon base with food, water, and air from unmanned HLV and even sub-HLV launches. If humans can adjust to a 1/6 gravity without any deleterious effects to the human body then this could be one of the most important discoveries of the century!
The smallest lunar base might require only 8 HLV launches of lunar hardware followed by 5 HLV launches per year (humans and supplies) or 3 HLV launches plus 2 sub-HLV crew launches per year.
But one of the primary reasons for going to the Moon is to see how well humans can utilize lunar resources to live off the land so that we can minimize and eventually terminate such expensive supply launches from Earth.
The ultimate long term goal for our manned space program, IMO, should be for manned extraterrestrial facilities to be totally independent of the Earth’s resources. And I believe that this could well be a reality long before the end of this century and possibly even before mid-century.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — November 9, 2010 @ 9:38 pm
The two aren’t completely unrelated
I never claimed otherwise. Instead, I contend that strategic goals are more important than means. I also contend that focusing exclusively on means without an envisioned end results in institutional Brownian motion, at least with this agency. My evidence for this is the space program of the last 30 years.
If we propose an inexpensive means, then maybe we can get them to change/add to their ends.
“Inexpensive” meaning what? Things are perceived as “expensive” or “inexpensive” in the context of what they accomplish. You are proposing to build a system that is “inexpensive” to operate but how can you show that it is “inexpensive” unless in the context of what you’re trying to do?
I also note that the formulation of “build it and they will come” was exactly the attitude held by the advocates of ESAS. Doc Horowitz told the audience at a meeting that he wasn’t particularly concerned with what they planned to do on the Moon — he was building a pick-up truck. We could decide what to put in his truck.
I contend that he fundamentally misunderstood his assignment. Now, his pickup truck is histoire.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 10, 2010 @ 8:52 am
My friend will disown me for posting this. However there is plenty to do with a lunar base. Pick one.
A fun but not “entirely” unrealistic vision of the future.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvL0tOd-pys
Comment by Rhyshaelkan — November 10, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
Congratulations Dr. Spudis to you and your colleagues at the Space Studies Institute conference last October on extraterrestrial mining. I just posted a video of the SSI conference at New Papyrus.
I think you did an excellent job making the case for returning to the Moon to exploit its resources. And it was clear that the audience much appreciated your insight! I’d love to see you and that panel testifying before Congress.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — November 10, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Marcel,
Thanks for your very kind comments. I hope to able to make the case for lunar return to many members of the new Congress in the coming months.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 11, 2010 @ 4:23 am
Rhyshaelkan,
Many thanks for that link — I enjoyed watching it! The rationale for lunar return gets better all the time.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 11, 2010 @ 4:36 am
Well, as I see it the situation is this-
America is inbroiled in two wars both of which are unwinable and costly in terms of bodybags and material .Also the 600 billion dollar ‘defense’ budget continues to go from strength to strength at the exspense of social programmmes .Plus the country is 600 trillion dollars in debt and has to go cap in hand to its ‘near peer’ future enemy China for a bail out loan,education standards are droppimg to the point where people think the age of the world is a mere few thousand years old and bible thumping nuts no better than the taliban dream of turning america into a fundermentalist state. And added to that the shuttle fleet are about to become dusty museum pieces.
The odds don’t look good for a USA return to the moon ,the country is broke.UNLESS Space X insure that every ‘t’ is crossed and every ‘i’ is dotted manage to launch their Dragon/Falcon combination. If they could succed you would have a chance of a lunar return of some kind. It would be straightforward to dock a Dragon to a earlier launched TLI/habitat stage for a lunar/asteroid flight.
But it will take a lot of luck and care. Americas future as a space faring nation hangs by a thin thread.
Perhaps the next person to set foot on the moon will speak either Chinese,Russian,French or a Scandianvian tongue……………….
Comment by E .Philpott — November 27, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Sucessful F9/Dragon flight and recovery. The thread has got a little bit thicker!
Comment by E .Philpott — December 8, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
Successful Dragon docking to ISS. Thicker yet.
Comment by JohnHunt — June 7, 2012 @ 3:11 pm